Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Rick O'Shez]

As you well know, likewise, I utterly and soundly reject all concepts that include the words "ultimate" and "absolute". For good measure, I suppose we can now add "Supreme" to the short list too, of words that should never be used to describe the perceptions of inner reality. It's just inner reality, there is no need to go all goofy about it.

I am particularly dubious about adjectives which start with a capital letter.

 

[metis]

Excuse me. Where have I EVER told anyone they should believe as I do? You're making things up, or reading into things I've said.

I think I can safely say that I'm not making things up as you've been on a "cosmic consciousness" sell job for quite a while.

 

[YmirGF]

I think I can safely say that I'm not making things up as you've been on a sell job for quite a while.

Agreed. It's really shameless self-promotion of a very superficial "members only" vision of reality and one that is not terribly compelling either.

 

[metis]

I already made it clear to you that universal consciousness cannot be proven via factual evidence. It is purely experiential. Secondly, no one is telling you to swallow anything, but only to go see for yourself. The door is wide open, with no doctrine attached to distort your view. All that is asked is that you leave your baggage behind for awhile. It will be there when you return.

If it is "experiential" as you say, then one who has not experienced it cannot be blamed for not experiencing it.

Therefore, let me ask you this question, what do you suggest we do to "experience" what you say you're experienced? Don't say "meditate" as I have been doing that for decades now.

 

[metis]

Agreed. It's really shameless self-promotion of a very superficial "members only" vision of reality and one that is not terribly compelling either.

Not only isn't it really compelling, it really is nonsensical, and for at least two reasons:

1.there's no way one can in reality experience "cosmic consciousness" unless one traveled throughout the cosmos and saw everything, and...

2.if such a "consciousness" were to supposedly exist, then why isn't it detectable within inorganic matter?

As you well know, it's simply a belief system that some elevate to a slam-dunk fact, and the "experiential" argument simply falls flat on its face.

 

[YmirGF]

As you well know, it's simply a belief system that some elevate to a slam-dunk fact, and the "experiential" argument simply falls flat on its face.

I know, really. *sigh* This is why, from my OWN experience of this state of consciousness, it only seems "cosmic" in contrast to the perspective of ordinary consciousness. In no other way is it actually "cosmic". It's just expanded awareness. Again, there is no reason to get all goofy over it and suggest it is more than it is. It is also my suggestion that anyone who is clinging to the idea of so-called "cosmic consciousness" hasn't actually experienced the state to much degree.

If they did, they would, quite naturally, move beyond it... back to consciousness - with a small "c".

See?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This is why, from my OWN experience of this state of consciousness, it only seems "cosmic" in contrast to the perspective of ordinary consciousness.

Yes, and as we were discussing earlier in the thread, it's easy to get carried away with these altered states of consciousness and start reading all kinds of things into them. It's a bit easier in Buddhism because the jhanic states are described in the suttas, so you have a rough idea of where you are, and the kind of experience you might expect.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations - physics-math - 20 November 2008 - New Scientist

What has any of this got to do with "cosmic consciousness" though?

QM relates to the sub-atomic world, the very small, and different rules apply to cosmology. Our everyday world is subject to Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics. If you drop a brick on your foot it will still hurt.

Not if I drop it on yours it won't..haha

 

[YmirGF]

Not if I drop it on yours it won't..haha

True, but most assuredly your head would hurt moments after that occurrence.

 

[metis]

It's a bit easier in Buddhism because the jhanic states are described in the suttas, so you have a rough idea of where you are, and the kind of experience you might expect.

But Buddhist dharma is not exempt from jumping to conclusions, but what I do admire about it is that one is to test dharma "by fire", according to the Buddha, and not just automatically accept a teaching. Matter of fact, HHDL has on many occasions stated that if a teaching conflicts with science, go with science as many things are better understood today than they were 2000+ years ago.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Not if I drop it on yours it won't..haha

I have steel toe caps.

 

[godnotgod]

I know, really. *sigh* This is why, from my OWN experience of this state of consciousness, it only seems "cosmic" in contrast to the perspective of ordinary consciousness. In no other way is it actually "cosmic". It's just expanded awareness. Again, there is no reason to get all goofy over it and suggest it is more than it is. It is also my suggestion that anyone who is clinging to the idea of so-called "cosmic consciousness" hasn't actually experienced the state to much degree.

If they did, they would, quite naturally, move beyond it... back to consciousness - with a small "c".

See?

I'm already peeling the potatoes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But Buddhist dharma is not exempt from jumping to conclusions, but what I do admire about it is that one is to test dharma "by fire", according to the Buddha, and not just automatically accept a teaching.

Yes, we tend to investigate experience rather than taking on beliefs.

 

[godnotgod]

But Buddhist dharma is not exempt from jumping to conclusions, but what I do admire about it is that one is to test dharma "by fire", according to the Buddha, and not just automatically accept a teaching. Matter of fact, HHDL has on many occasions stated that if a teaching conflicts with science, go with science as many things are better understood today than they were 2000+ years ago.

If they're better understood today, why arent't they better understood? Why is man in more of a fix than ever before, and more confused than ever before? With all this wonderful scientific knowledge at his disposal, you would think he would be better off. But we are in one toxic fix of a mess, not only environmentally, but spiritually, or maybe I should say the world is in a fix because man is not in touch with his spirituality. You are making a common mistake: we are not going to get understanding via factual knowledge. Why would anyone think that?

 

[YmirGF]

I'm already peeling the potatoes.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm already peeling the potatoes.

Oh GNG, you're such a tease! I'm sure you're about to tell us about your personal experience of cosmic consciousness, we are all really curious, don't keep us waiting any longer!

 

[YmirGF]

If they're better understood today, why arent't they better understood? Why is man in more of a fix than ever before, and more confused than ever before? With all this wonderful scientific knowledge at his disposal, you would think he would be better off. But we are in one toxic fix of a mess, not only environmentally, but spiritually, or maybe I should say the world is in a fix because man is not in touch with his spirituality. You are making a common mistake: we are not going to get understanding via factual knowledge. Why would anyone think that?

You really do have an abysmal view of the plight of the human condition for an enlightened being. Your contempt for your fellow human animals is almost palpable.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You really do have an abysmal view of the plight of the human condition for an enlightened being. Your contempt for your fellow human animals is almost palpable.

Too harsh I think. He is doing a good job, you just don't understnad it. It does not mean he doesn't.

 

[metis]

If they're better understood today, why arent't they better understood? Why is man in more of a fix than ever before, and more confused than ever before? With all this wonderful scientific knowledge at his disposal, you would think he would be better off. But we are in one toxic fix of a mess, not only environmentally, but spiritually, or maybe I should say the world is in a fix because man is not in touch with his spirituality. You are making a common mistake: we are not going to get understanding via factual knowledge. Why would anyone think that?

So, according to your perspective, "ignorance is bliss". Well, maybe for some it is.

The world is more complicated than yesteryear, no doubt, but it also even in its complication offers more. In yesteryear, people were highly judgmental towards other religions, along with having a strong tendency towards ethnocentrism. In yesteryear, I'd be dead because of a serious health problem I had when I was 30 that modern medicine cured. In yesteryear people didn't live that long, and infant mortality was much higher than today. In yesteryear, wars actually were more common than they are today. In yesteryear, people were far more ignorant on many matters than they are today.

The "good old days" really weren't that good, but often we forget that or simply don't much study history.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The "good old days" really weren't that good, but often we forget that or simply don't much study history.

This loss of spirituality theme is something that new-age types often dwell on. Lot's of vague references to "ancient sages", the implication that new-agers are in the unique position of rediscovering ancient wisdom, it's by now familiar rhetoric.